A Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail alleging sections 406, 409 IPC etc. was dismissed as main accused are absconding, no change of circumstances exists, and detailed investigation is required.
Petitioner's application for anticipatory bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.O.P.No.3290 of 2023
CRL.O.P.No.3290 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120 B r/w. 34 IPC in Cr.No.52 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.
executed power of attorney in favour of the accused A2 for the subject property and subsequently, the same was cancelled. However, the accused A2 had sold the said property to the petitioner and the petitioner in turn purchased the said property by obtaining loan from HDFC Bank. Hence, this complaint.
1/5
CRL.O.P.No.3290 of 2023
came to know that the de-facto complainant gave power of attorney to the accused A2, who in turn sold the property to the petitioner and that the defacto complainant had also executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter in law. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.2412 of 2016 before the VII Assistant City Civil Court and the said suit was decided in favour of the petitioner and the subsequent appeal preferred by the de-facto complainant was also dismissed, confirming the order of the trial Court. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner and this Court has already dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. He further submitted that the accused persons A1 and A2 approached the de-facto complainant for getting loan, believing which, the de-facto complainant gave power of attorney to the accused A2 and subsequently, cancelled the same. However, the accused A2 was alleged to have sold the property to the petitioner and further the accused persons A1 and A2 are absconding and the accused A3/the petitioner plays a vital role in the alleged crime, which needs a detailed investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed 2/5
CRL.O.P.No.3290 of 2023
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Intervenor raised serious objection stating that in order to grab the property, the accused persons A1 and A2 have fraudulently created forged documents and sold the subject property to the petitioner herein/accused A3. He further submitted that the petitioner plays a major role in grabbing the property from the de-facto complainant and further, by pledging the subject property, the petitioner had further obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.
Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
14.02.2023
skt
CRL.O.P.No.3290 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI,
J. skt
CRL.O.P.No.3290 of 2023
4/5
CRL.O.P.No.3290 of 2023
14.02.2023
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery where main accused persons are absconding.
Petitioner
T.V. Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
